Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 13, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:26

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #674

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Seaters.
	This is Tuesday, the 13th of June, and this is podcast episode 674.
	Today I'm joined by Dan.
	Howdy troops.
	Hi, Dan.
	And we are going to discuss a new law for Californian legislature, how women are the real problem of the world and where wokeness is ultimately going.
	Now, before we start, we have some announcements to make.
	So we have Live Rumble.
	I believe it is this Thursday.
	Yeah, this Thursday.
	It's about a COVID vaccine, whether it is the Mark of the Beast.
	I take it that one isn't going on YouTube?
	It's a Rumble Live, so I don't think it's going to be on YouTube.
	I hope you appreciate what we go through to bring you these segments because, you know, Stelios and I, you know, we prepared our segments and then 15 minutes before we're due to go live, all of a sudden we get a message from the boss saying you're not allowed to talk about trannies anymore.
	Apparently many people are having problems and strikes, especially people from the Daily Wire.
	We only had three segments that was covering this.
	Your segments, we just had to write them off.
	It's like, OK, that's not going on YouTube.
	My one, I was able to sort of work around it.
	Yeah, so basically there are no segments for YouTube.
	No, the second one will go up.
	It's the one that you are going to do.
	I'll have no segments on YouTube.
	Yeah.
	John is just reminding me that I'm not allowed... I keep saying trannies in these and I keep getting edited out.
	But because this bit and your bits aren't going on YouTube, I can be, you know, like... You can be more free and you can express yourself.
	You can be yourself.
	You can be the authentic Dan now.
	The uncensored Dan.
	No, actually, you have to be uncensored on my segment.
	Trannies, traps, whatever, you know, we can go there.
	Apart from the second, we have to be very well behaved in the second segment.
	Okay, I will put my best face there.
	Yes, we're going to take that one very seriously.
	Right.
	We're going to go to California now, where the blue states are responding to the bans that various red states are putting forward.
	Now, it seems to me that this is an effort to flex our political muscles.
	They don't care about people.
	They claim that they do.
	They claim that they care about the members of the minority and the protected groups that they claim to protect.
	But actually, it's all a facade.
	It's all a political game and they want to show that they are also responding back and they're punching And one of these moves that they have made is the Californian bill, Assembly Bill 957.
	So the Californian Assembly Bill has recently passed, and it makes the affirmation of a child's gender identity salient for matters such as custody.
	So it is a massive restriction on parental rights.
	And Gavin Newsom would have us believe that most people are immigrating to California This is like North Korean level propaganda, isn't it?
	Yeah, we hear the opposite.
	California refugee, if you are watching or listening to us, please tell us what is going on.
	You can bloody see it in the U-Haul stats.
	There is a myriad of indicators.
	Federal taxpayers are shifting their location.
	It's clear there is a massive exodus.
	A significant exodus from California.
	So the problem with this bill, in a nutshell, or if I could have some bullet points, is that it exposes children to increased risk.
	Both those who identify as trans and those who do not.
	It poses incredible strain on families where parents disagree with a woke agenda and it poses an increased strain on families who may not agree with a child or the visible influence that the child may have from school and its social circle.
	Because there is such a thing as going to a school and getting, let's say, exposed to all sorts of weird ideas and going back to the house and wanting to make a revolution or to rebel and use that language.
	Well, the even worse thing is when the kid comes back and doesn't say anything because they've been coached, don't mention this at home.
	And then, you know, you're six months later and all of a sudden you get a letter from the school saying that, you know, little Billy is now little Susan.
	Exactly.
	And if you have a problem with this, we're going to take your kid away from you.
	Exactly, and that's a really insightful comment to make, because if the kid says something, it functions like a red alert, but if they're instructed not to say anything, it flies under the radar.
	Which, you know, I would imagine if you're grooming kids, the first thing you do is tell them, you know, don't tell anybody about this.
	Yeah, so basically, in blue states, parents who disagree with the woke agenda have problems, and they have increasingly more problems, and it is now also in the family.
	And speaking against this trend of increased centralization becomes increasingly more difficult.
	Now, speaking of free speech and the restrictions on it, you can visit our website and for only five pounds a month you can have access to all our content and watch this interview for stuff like this interview where I interviewed Dr. David Thunder about issues such as the new Irish anti-free speech bill, citizenship, communities, and where on earth are we going.
	Okay, so definitely give that a watch.
	Now, back to California.
	There was an article published on Free Beacon.
	I will read some parts of it, and we could discuss as we go along.
	So it says, the bill, which has already passed the state assembly, would require judges adjudicating such disputes over transgender-identifying children to favor the parent who affirms the child's preferred identity.
	Earlier this week, the authors released an updated version that specifically defines the health, safety, and welfare of a child to include a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity, a chain that the bill's opponents worry will open the door to non-affirmation being treated as abuse.
	So, you can see this bill is essentially about Custody fights.
	But this is only the beginning.
	There will be doubt, there will doubtlessly be more bills to come.
	Bills that will be perceived of as the response to the restrictions that the red states are imposing upon those who are in favor of the woke agenda.
	Now, the thing though, is that we should focus a lot on how terms work a bit because it sounds very legalistic, but you cannot not be legalistic when you're talking about things like that, especially laws.
	So, if you focus deep down, wokeness as a rhetoric is focused on a ridiculous inflation of the concept of harm and abuse.
	This means, basically, that more and more and more things count as abuse and abusive.
	So, if we have the idea that the state should protect people from abuse, that, you know, on an ordinary level, it makes sense.
	Why would you want people to abuse other people?
	Then you don't see what is really the problem here.
	That there is an underlying ideological subversion that changes slowly and steadily the meaning of the word abuse.
	And we wake up in a world where basically everything counts as abusive.
	And things that we took for granted until now, we see that are not taken for granted.
	I think that's a major problem.
	What's happening here?
	So we're moving from a concept of rights being the self-regarding and the other-regarding, as long as you're doing something for yourself, but it's now becoming the obligation on others to affirm your perception of your own rights.
	Exactly.
	And if they do not do this, there are increased, let's say pressures to characterize that as abuse, especially when we're talking about judges who are trying to yield a verdict in cases such as custody fights.
	I mean, if you are a Californian man who's married to, you know, a bit of a bit of a lefty, yeah, might be coming back to that theme later.
	What are you going to do if you've got kids?
	What a horrific situation to be in because we are now at the stage where, what is it, the sexual mutilation of children via operations is now becoming a regular occurrence and basically what this law is doing, if I'm understanding you correctly, is basically disarming any defence that the parent who is sensible, probably the man, has to defend against any of this.
	Exactly, it completely disarms you.
	Let's go back to the article.
	Okay, where was I?
	Okay, so, with an open quote.
	Okay, when you say that gender affirmation is in the child's best interest for health, safety and welfare, it takes nothing to say Non-affirmation is now abuse, because you're not taking care of the health, safety, and welfare if you're not affirming them." Said Aaron Friday, a San Francisco attorney and co-lead of the parent coalition Our Duty.
	The amended bill, known as Assembly Bill 957, is the latest in a state slate of legislation to enshrine left-wing gender ideology in California law.
	State Senator Scott Weiner Who co-authored Assembly Bill 957 with Assemblywoman Lori Wilson is simultaneously advancing a separate bill that would require foster parents to promise to affirm trans-identifying children.
	In 2022, he introduced a first-in-the-nation law enshrining California as a haven where out-of-state minors can obtain sex changes without their parents' consent.
	That wiener guy, was that the guy who was taking nude photos of himself on his bed while his child was on the other side of the bed?
	Yes, that was the guy.
	Now, let's move to the next link.
	And this is the bill.
	I will quote some phrases from it.
	It says, this bill would require the court to strongly consider that affirming the minor's gender identity is in the best interest of the child if a non-consenting parent objects to a name change to conform to the minor's gender identity.
	This bill would require a court, when determining the best interests of a child, to also consider a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity.
	For purposes of this provision, it would include a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child.
	Now, tell me Dan, it seems to me that there is a debate going on about this, and this bill uses factual language where Well, there is a debate about it, because there is no pretense of neutrality here.
	So in sales terms, what they're doing is they're talking past the sale.
	So they're not saying, you know, do you want to buy this car?
	What they're saying is, you know, what do you think your neighbours are going to be saying when they see you pull up in this car?
	It's talking past the sale.
	So it is basically treating this argument as if it has already been won.
	Yes.
	And not only as if it is already being won, as everyone who disagrees with it is a bigot.
	Basically, that's all that they're doing.
	Do they talk about what they define as a child?
	I mean, does a five-year-old count?
	As you will see, a seven-year-old definitely counts.
	And if you look at the Jazz Jennings situation and the Jazz Jennings case, if you can go on Amazon, the book I Am Jazz that is supposed to be autobiographic about Jazz Jennings, the age that Amazon has is four to eight.
	And Just Jennings apparently said at two years old that, well, I'm in the wrong body.
	Oh, come on.
	Anybody who's got a kid.
	That is such rubbish.
	If we can scroll down a bit on this, please.
	We can go on the votes section.
	It's a bit further down.
	Yeah, we can see there are 51 yeas, 13 nays.
	And it did pass this March, on March the 30th.
	So it just needs to go to the governor to be signed, is it?
	Yes.
	So basically, close to 80% of the people voted, of the assembly members voted for it on the third reading.
	Now, let's have a look at the session and what they were talking about.
	This is Assembly Member Lawrence Wilson.
	Let's have a look.
	Good morning, members.
	I am here to present AB 957, a bill that would require a court to consider a parent's affirmation of the child's identity, gender identity, when determining the best interest of a child.
	AB 957 would also require a court to strongly consider that affirming the gender identity of a minor is in the best interest of the child if a non-consenting parent objects to a name change to confirm to the minor's gender identity.
	I understand many of my colleagues are absent today, but I'm bringing up this bill today in particular because tomorrow, March 31st, is International Transgender Day of Visibility.
	This is an important week, and I want to take the time to highlight the legislature's affirmation that we see this community and will fight for equality for all transgender people.
	Members, currently when parents do not agree on affirming a TGI, which stands for transgender, gender diverse, intersex, When parents do not agree on affirming a TGI child's gender identity, the family code does not specify how a judge should determine the best interest of a TGI child.
	TGI youth are at a higher risk of depression, mental health crisis, self-harm, and suicide than their cis peers.
	Having at least one adult in a child's life who affirms their gender identity decreases their chance of attempting suicide significantly.
	Okay, we can pause this here.
	Thanks, John.
	So, again, what I'm looking at, how does this seem to you?
	I'm thinking that this individual, I bet her kids are old enough that this isn't going to be an issue for her.
	I think that she has a child that identifies as a trans child.
	Oh, really?
	Oh, God.
	So, what I see here is, again, the use of factual language when we have a discussion that is ongoing.
	And she does exactly what we said before.
	She's presenting it as if there's only one interpretation, and one interpretation only.
	And anyone else who would suggest otherwise would be deemed a bigot.
	Now, it is the case, and unfortunately so, that there are high rates of suicide within members of that community.
	But the problem remains as to how to actually interpret the problem, because if you want to solve a problem, you need to brainstorm and you need to have all sorts of interpretations about what is going on in order to maybe come up with some good solutions.
	So when speech about this issue is being silenced, brainstorming about the issue is being silenced.
	Yeah, I mean, it is the classic way that progressives have always worked, which is they attempt to make any opposition to their policies a criminal offence.
	Yeah.
	Exactly.
	I mean, it's not just Californian ones, I mean, I'm talking, you know, Khmer Rouge, I mean, USSR, the whole lot, they always do this.
	Yeah.
	The demonization of the opponent.
	In the name of the people we want to allow the people to speak.
	Specifically the criminalization of their opponents.
	Yes.
	Is what they always do.
	Yeah.
	And sometimes it ends up in a... to the back of their head.
	And the goal is more power.
	The goal is not to save people or to care for any community.
	Because if there was care for a community that has such high rates of suicide, there would be brainstorming.
	Now, when you allow brainstorming, you do allow people to say their minds and some of their speech may be deemed hateful, may be deemed whatever.
	But you do allow brainstorming.
	It is only with brainstorming that we can come up to solutions.
	Now, and one thing is that there are some other people called detransitioners who are giving a different interpretation of what is going on, and maybe they are suggesting different solutions about it.
	Speaking of detransitioners, you could visit their website again.
	Oh, that's a good one.
	Yes, and watch Conor's interview of Richie Herron.
	at the reality of trans grief.
	This is a brilliant interview, I must say.
	Yeah, it's a good one.
	I've watched it and I thoroughly recommend it.
	It has been watched by many, many people, but it's worth revisiting.
	Now, let's move to the next clip.
	thank my colleague from Susan City, my former seatmate, for bringing this bill up.
	Unfortunately, this bill deals with a scenario that is all too common for our community.
	Our families do not often accept us when we are brave enough and vulnerable enough to come out and be our true, authentic selves.
	This is true especially for our trans siblings, who have recently faced an increase of discrimination and violence for no other reason than being themselves.
	I am proud to see this bill on the assembly floor today.
	I want to thank the author as an ally and as someone in our family, in our community, for bringing forth a piece of this legislation that actually helps protect the rights and dignity of transgender individuals.
	This has not been the case in other legislative bodies, as we've seen across our country, where legislation is targeting, discriminating against our transgender siblings, and we need to stand up here in California.
	Let me be clear.
	This bill is essential to California values.
	Dignity, diversity, acceptance, and willingness to protect the rights of all.
	How does this sound?
	Well, when she says it's crucial for Californian values, I mean, that might actually be true.
	I mean, it's so far gone at this point, isn't it?
	But there is a further issue, I would say, that it's all phrased in the abstract.
	In the abstract, it's nice to say we care for people, we care to protect the rights of all, we're willing to protect the rights of all.
	But the question is, well, is there a compatibility?
	Leftists are incapable of thinking more than five minutes in advance.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, there's a big problem with making a comparison between short term, what seems to be beneficial in the short term, and what is long term expedient.
	And the thing is that when we talk about recognition and being understood and being seen and being whatever, there's always an as clause.
	So when people want to be recognized, do you want to be recognized as what?
	We cannot say that to be recognized as a human, everyone needs to agree with you.
	This is too strong.
	This leads directly to the totalitarian and authoritarian mindset and practice that you mentioned, that, you know, unless you buy the whole package, you're an enemy of the people.
	And the package keeps morphing and mutating, of course.
	Yes, and unless you buy the whole package, I'm in self-defense mode, and in self-defense it's permissible to do something about people who disrespect me, and therefore, I have legitimacy in pursuing these tactics.
	Now, let's look at this gentleman here.
	I had a cousin that's transgender.
	Unfortunately, I'm using the word had.
	As an African American and African American community growing up, we weren't the most accepting.
	Matter of fact, we were probably hostile to transgender people when I was growing up.
	And when we were kids.
	And Some of the things that we used to do were horrific.
	Even just the verbal things we said to my cousin.
	My cousin eventually was so distraught because he couldn't come to family functions, he wasn't really accepted, that he got hooked on drugs.
	He eventually died in San Francisco of a drug overdose.
	Homeless, alone.
	It took about three months before the coroner's office was able to find my aunt and his mother so that we could bury him.
	That's my cousin.
	He should have not gone through that and the torture he went through as a kid.
	will always burn in my heart, will always burn in my memory, and I wish I had done more.
	And so I'm so grateful to you for doing this moving forward, that we're able to do something for individuals that are in that dilemma, especially in our community, especially in the black community.
	We got to do more.
	So thank you, Assemblymember Wilson.
	Now, it's of course very unfortunate that this person lost his cousin, but I want to say that in the context of this discussion, in the context of the discussion of a bill that is about restricting parental rights, this I would say is a really biased and mistaken presentation and I'm really careful with my words.
	It is using emotional weight to conflate one thing with another thing.
	Yes, and not only that, it presents the case as if you're either a bully that will lead the other person into the slippery slope of an unfortunate life, or someone who should celebrate everything and accept the whole package.
	This person's rhetoric presents the issue as if there is zero middle ground, and this is just wrong.
	And this again is the thinking that you described before, that unless you buy the whole package, you're someone whose rights should be massively restricted.
	There are only extreme and harmful positions, pick one.
	Yeah.
	And let's answer your question before about whether a five-year-old is treated by this piece of legislature as having a testimony whose validity is treated as sort of sacrosanct.
	She will answer about a seven-year-old.
	I think that that should answer you.
	Let's watch Laurie Wilson.
	So this particular bill adds the very important factor that affirming a child's gender identity is in their best interest, which is what your question is about.
	Why does it actually say that in an affirmative way?
	And it really is because if you have a seven-year-old who's talking about having a potential to say, I being able to articulate that they believe that they are not the same gender as they are biologically, then it should be affirmed.
	And through care, it should be determined.
	And that's what we did with our own child.
	And that would give the ability for a parent who wasn't sure to affirm and get their child the care that they need to make that so they can begin to articulate that determination.
	But by saying and rejecting it in wholesale, then you're essentially rejecting your child.
	And that is not in the best interest of a child.
	We should be affirming our children in every possible way and getting them whatever appropriate care they need, whether it's based on their gender, whether it's based on how their studies are in school.
	It doesn't matter.
	Our children should be affirmed.
	And this is saying that you have to include gender affirmation as a part of It's a bit scattered, isn't it?
	I don't know where she got educated from, but being able to articulate a point doesn't make it right.
	You could articulate a false proposition.
	And so imagine that.
	Let's make the scenario you mentioned before even more horrific.
	Let's say you have a child.
	It goes to school.
	It has a woke circle.
	And it has other, let's say, classmates that start talking about all these weird things that confuse people.
	And it comes back to the house.
	It wants to rebel against the parents.
	And the child starts saying that, you know, I identify as a different gender.
	What are Californians to do then?
	Are they going to lose custodians or not?
	And there are a ton of problems here.
	So, for instance, there's a complete conflation between the term rejection of the person from disagreement with a particular interpretation of a particular feeling.
	That is where I think is very sinister.
	Things get very sinister because when you disagree with someone, when you disagree with someone vehemently, it could be about values.
	It could be about where they want to take their life.
	It doesn't mean that you reject their personality.
	Those two are different things.
	They can go together, but they don't have to go together.
	Now, and we have some links that you could remind yourself of.
	This is from the past.
	We have here from the Daily Mail.
	That was from the 14th of April, 2023.
	Mom slams California school for transitioning her daughter to a boy behind her back.
	Now, if we go to the next link, we have Senator Scott Weiner, who is the person you mentioned before.
	Here the trans activist says teachers are protecting kids from hate and prejudice.
	Now if we go to the next link, we have Senator Scott Wiener, who is your person you mentioned before.
	Let us look at his warning.
	You need to be paying attention to what's happening to trans kids and their parents in Texas.
	The governor and attorney general of Texas, right-wing Republicans, are literally threatening to arrest the parents of trans kids for helping those kids get gender-affirming health care.
	and are threatening to actually take those kids away and put them in foster care.
	We need to send a strong message to trans kids in Texas that we have their backs, that they have a strong community around them.
	We're putting links in the comments about what you can do to support trans kids and their parents in Texas.
	We have to push back hard. - No one cares about the children.
	It's all about a political game.
	It's about giving a political message that, I don't know, maybe it's coincidental, helps his political career.
	And to end this segment and move to the one you have prepared, we have two links.
	that you could consult if you want.
	One is, Washington state Democrats vote to hide transgender runaways from parents.
	This is something I presented on some, I think about two months ago.
	It was about some asylum laws that if children go to, let's say, if some children say that they have run away from their home, the asylum is not now obligated to talk to inform the parents.
	Whereas it was before.
	And another horrible case...
	That it's Texas dad fears ex-wife plans to chemically castrate nine-year-old son.
	This is a story about a Texas father at the center of a bitter years-long gender transition case.
	He claims his ex-wife had moved to California planning to chemically castrate their nine-year-old son, James, who identified as a girl named Luna.
	So if you want to remember this story, you can check the link below.
	Should we move to a more Yes, let's try, shall we?
	Happy segment, I gather?
	Yeah, well, I think what we need to do is we need to talk about a certain group.
	This is a group that has been working in the background for many decades to undermine Western civilization.
	And normally, if you say anything about this group, you get instant pushback.
	But I think we have to be brave.
	We have to call them out.
	Is it decades or centuries?
	It goes back many centuries, this group.
	Gentlemen, I regret to inform you we have to talk about women.
	Before I do, let's make a nod to the premium podcast that you can get on the website.
	This one is Relationship Advice from Patrice O'Neill.
	Excellent video, that.
	You can go and get it right now.
	I will say, I will give a bit of a sop, not the trad You know, conservative women, quite like them.
	Yeah?
	But progressive women, uh... God, they're just bloody awful, aren't they?
	I think we've got a video that we can get into which makes this point.
	Let's watch this.
	One of the realizations I recently had was that as a liberal woman, it is really hard to find a man who is willing to play the more traditional masculine role in the relationship in today's day and age.
	Who is not a conservative.
	A man who wants to pay on the first date, who wants to open your door, who has that want and desire to take care of you and to provide.
	Who is not a conservative.
	And obviously as a liberal woman, I do want to be respected for my independence.
	And I do want to have my own autonomy in the relationship and not be confined or conformed to the traditional female, homemaker, childbearing role.
	And most of the men that I've dated who do have that more natural provider masculinity about them are normally conservative.
	So I don't really know what to do because I don't want to compromise my morals and values just to find a man, but Am I asking to have my cake and eat it too? - There's everything wrong with that.
	Just everything wrong from the beginning to the end. - I mean, for a start making a video where you're supposed to be driving.
	I mean, that doesn't help, but it just gets worse from there.
	So basically, oh God, she, you're right, everything.
	She wants all the benefits of the traditional gender roles, but doesn't want to offer anything in exchange.
	She says that she doesn't want to be constrained by traditional gender roles, and then immediately saying that she wants a man who's constrained by traditional gender roles.
	I have said it for years.
	I think women who are pushing forward this woke nonsense, they do this as a test.
	Women love to test us.
	And I think they do this... I don't know if they understand it, but they are saying that they want this, and they are rejecting the people who act accordingly.
	I've got thoughts on shit tests.
	I think that that is a useful, evolved mechanism, because you don't want to be eight months pregnant and have a saber-toothed tiger up your ass, and then all of a sudden you find out that your man's got no bottle.
	So there is good evolutionary reasons why you want to push a man.
	And to see if he stands up for himself.
	And I think a lot of that is also that women, and you're right, it's all on autopilot.
	They have no idea that they're doing it.
	Completely unreliable testimony.
	It's all baked in.
	But part of it is, you know, for women there is only a sort of, well there's a single scale and it goes from one to ten as to their qualities.
	With a man, you can have multiple different ranges of equality.
	Bernie Eccleston, not a physical Adonis, but he has other things going on.
	There are multiple different spectrums for men.
	And so it is harder for women, I think, to understand what qualifies as necessarily a high-achieving man.
	So they outsource that problem to the guy.
	Where they give him a hard time to see if he understands his value.
	Because, I mean, this is how you respond to a shit test if you're in a sort of new relationship.
	If you're just like, well, OK, go then.
	I'll just get somebody else.
	If you do that, they will instantly shut up.
	It's like, OK, well, you know, I can't rush it.
	Next level now.
	We need to change the game.
	But if you start apologising for yourself, then she has recognised that you understand that you are punching up.
	You're out of your league, effectively, at this point.
	And then she can respond appropriately.
	A punching bag.
	Yeah.
	This is like, oh, I hate it when you see boomer men do this.
	They refer to their wife as their better half, and they start doing this debasement thing, and, oh, she's so much better than me.
	God, women bloody hate that.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, they do, but... Anyway, back... Sorry, that was all about shit tests.
	Back to this woman.
	I mean...
	The bigger point is that society used to do a lot of telling people no.
	They would have told women like this, no, don't be so silly.
	But all of that has been eroded.
	So you're suggesting that she's doing a bit of a shit test.
	She could still be doing this shit test by the time she's like 39.
	Even after that?
	Yeah.
	Rather than me having to be clever and think about exactly what was wrong with it, Connor has done it for me.
	So let's just read this.
	Yeah, you can carry on.
	Now, Connor put up actually a very good post.
	So rather than me having to be clever and think about exactly what was wrong with it, Connor has done it for me.
	So let's just read this.
	A suggestion to this woman who is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
	The masculine athetic you are attracted to is inexorable from the conservative values you have been taught to hate.
	Delaying gratification, making sacrifices, choosing duty and hard work over expedient pleasures.
	They make a man strong, respectable and attractive to women on a deeper level than post-feminist programming can reach.
	The men likewise want a woman who is the emotional cornerstone of their life, who inspires them to provide for her and respects the sacrifices he makes.
	He does not want a woman who will have one foot out the door emotionally and financially at all times.
	He does not want to invest in a relationship with a woman who could divorce or kill his unborn children as an option.
	I think.
	Well done, Connor.
	Yeah.
	I I think when it comes to dating tips, very frequently when men do what women tell them that they want them to do, they get instantly rejected.
	Oh, yeah.
	Do not ask women for dating tips.
	You don't see fishermen asking the fish how to fish, do you?
	No.
	But I think it's more complex than that, because all of it, the attraction is what breaks the rule.
	So they're expressing the rule, what they find.
	Because it's what they, when you put them on the spot, it's what they frequently feel that will make them sound a bit more appealing.
	It's like many women that you ask, you know, I like Brad Pitt or I like, you know, this or that person.
	They have, there's a distinction between what they say they want In order to appeal respectable and what they actually want and they frequently express the complete opposite.
	The first thing you need to do as a young man is to pay attention to what women respond to not what women say they want.
	They are different things.
	And I don't want to just take aim at women in this section because, you know, this whole, you know, how to understand masculinity is something that a lot of young men get wrong as well.
	And I saw this video, it's quite cringy actually.
	Let's play the next video.
	I don't know if it's got much sound to it, but you may have seen this on Twitter a little while ago.
	There we go.
	So this is a young man who's basically engaged a young woman in conversation in a bar.
	Sounds just a bit random but yeah so he's engaged this woman in conversation and then he immediately sort of turns you know his body away and basically sort of starts ignoring her and breaking eye contact all that kind of thing and Sorry, I don't mean to do this, but this seems to me to be like a strategy.
	It's the push-pull strategy.
	Because they say if you look straight forward, it's more like confrontational.
	And it gets women a bit agitated and on guard.
	So what he's done is he has misunderstood the whole concept here, because the way women work is they want a value gap between themselves.
	They want to perceive that the man is of higher value than them.
	It's their sort of hypergamy or something, I think they call it, where they kind of want to reach up.
	Now, so, from her perspective, there should be that value gap, and he has sort of understood that on one level, And rather than actually achieve it, he's trying to cheat the process.
	He's trying to shortcut it or game it.
	So he's kind of doing this thing where he's pointed away, she's focused on him.
	I mean, he's set it up like that.
	He's sort of, you know, turned his attention away.
	He's kind of half ignoring her.
	And he's trying to say here that, you know, she is more interested in me than I am in her.
	But he's gamed the whole process because he initiated this conversation in the first place and then he sort of immediately started doing this.
	And actually what's happened is he's come across looking like he's just socially awkward and he can't quite maintain... To her or to everyone else?
	Because it matters how it looks to her.
	Yeah, I mean, well, I don't think that she is the subject here.
	The subject here are the young men that he's presumably selling courses to on how to pick up women.
	So the real subject is actually are the young men, rather than this woman here.
	Just, you know, don't do that.
	If you're going to get into a conversation with a girl, give her your full attention.
	I mean, by all means, know your worth.
	And look, if you go on a date or something and it's clearly not working out, it's perfectly fine just to be polite and say, you know, this isn't working.
	Check that she can get home safe and call it off and just go.
	I have no problem with young men understanding their worth and extracting themselves from a situation.
	But don't go initiating contact with somebody, getting your mate to film it without her bloody permission, and then pulling this shit.
	I mean, you give somebody your full attention if you're going to be engaging with them.
	Yeah, but if she is ungrateful, and you giving her your whole attention is going to actually make her less interested, because you won't give her homework.
	You won't give her homework to say, you know, I need to keep the attention.
	I think that's game in the process.
	It is that thing where you're trying to present yourself as having value, but rather than having genuine value, You're gaming it.
	You're trying to shortcut that process.
	You're trying to flip the switches in the mind without actually having it.
	The way you achieve that value gap as a young man is you improve yourself.
	Okay.
	You know, you sort yourself out.
	I mean, probably the best example I've seen of sort of natural masculine energy when it comes to engaging with women is somebody like Russell Brand.
	I mean, he does it perfectly.
	You know, I know he's a bit of a lefty.
	Yeah.
	But if you see the way that he engages people, he gives them his full attention, he's engaging, he's doing the eye contact, that kind of stuff.
	Yeah.
	You know, when he was a single man in London, I mean, his apartment was, you know, basically a bedroom and a waiting room.
	But would it work for someone who wasn't famous?
	Um, yeah.
	Masculine energy applies whoever you are.
	I would find it cringe.
	So for me, when it comes to Russell Brand, it's about his persona.
	There was a very fun interview where I saw that there were some models there and he took a soap bottle and he started throwing soap on the table and everyone laughed there.
	That was funny, but that was cringy.
	If anyone else did it, You've got to have the personality to pull it off.
	He gets away with it because it's a persona.
	If he started doing it, I think he would be kicked off by the security guards.
	Yeah, quite possibly.
	Now, I did have another bit that I was going to do in this segment, but basically what happened is YouTube changed their policy about 15 minutes before we came on air, so I can't talk about the thing that I was going to talk about.
	Can you whistle it?
	No.
	I don't think it's safe to go there.
	We basically got an email from the boss man.
	He said, like, pull any segment that has this thing in it.
	So I had to soar out half the segment.
	And I reached out on Twitter and I said, somebody give me something.
	And somebody gave me something which roughly fits into this.
	I haven't even watched this yet, so we're just going to react to this and see what happens.
	What's this one?
	So this is Advice to Newlyweds.
	so let's play that it's no easy job Sam Take care of a woman.
	No, Seth.
	They expect things they never ask for.
	And when they don't get them, they ask you why.
	Sometimes they don't ask.
	And they just go ahead and punish you for not doing something you didn't know you were supposed to do in the first place.
	What, for instance, Seth?
	Well, that's a very difficult question to answer, Sam.
	You're never quite sure.
	It's just that it's, I'm sorry, you might say, relative.
	Relative to what, sir?
	To how they're feeling at the moment.
	And how's that?
	You never know.
	I don't believe I really understand what you're trying to tell me, sir.
	I know, I know.
	I never understood it myself.
	I never understood it.
	It's just one of those things, Sam.
	It's around.
	You just don't ever see it.
	Suppose Jenny started to cry one day.
	You don't know what she's crying about, so you ask her why.
	Do you follow me, Sam?
	Yes, sir.
	You ask her, and she won't tell you.
	And that's when you ask her what it was you did that caused her to cry.
	She's gonna start crying.
	And that's when you start to get angry.
	But don't get angry, Sam.
	She won't tell you why she's crying because she doesn't know.
	Women are like that, Sam.
	And it's exasperating, it's... But don't let it make you angry.
	None.
	So, so far, no lies detected.
	Hug her a little bit.
	Because that's all they really want when they're like that, Sam.
	Little lovin'.
	You understand me, don't you?
	No, Sam.
	You don't, huh?
	There's something else you must remember.
	Husbands like to be alone once in a while.
	Why?
	You never know why.
	But I can always tell when James wants to be alone.
	The mood comes over him.
	I can always see it in his eyes before it really gets there.
	I don't know where the mood comes from or why.
	But that's why I leave him alone.
	It seems sometimes things get so thick around the man that he comes to feel that everything is closing in on him.
	And that's when he wants to be left alone.
	You understand, don't you?
	No.
	Well, I don't know how to react to that apart from...
	They sort of nail it, don't they?
	Yeah.
	There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
	So if you were listening, that was, I think, an extract from a film, a 1950s film or something like that.
	Was it Gregory Peck?
	Could be.
	Giving advice?
	Yeah, could be.
	I think so.
	I may be wrong.
	Correct me if I'm wrong.
	This is just another example of the wisdom that the ancients knew and we have forgotten.
	Yes, wonderful.
	Right, now, so having ripped into progressive women and having taken aim at PUAs, I think what we need to do now is we need to give the viewers, we need to give them an example of what peak masculinity actually is.
	So, you know, how do we do that?
	It turns out there is this rather excellent channel, which I've recently become aware of, called Poe's Law.
	Now, that is a collection of traditional, conservative-based women who sort of get into discussing whatever it is that women discuss.
	I mean, I don't know, shopping ponies.
	Whatever it is, they discuss these things.
	Anyway, what they did at the weekend was quite inspired.
	What they did is they did an epic six hour stream where they took um um you know dozens and dozens of men from different categories so they had things like um you know political philosophers actors uh singers historical figures even youtubers um got to mention in there and they basically did a a a sort of a bit of a would you rather yeah um one at a time until they sort of coalesced it into apex Uh, masculinity.
	So I'll just read from the... and this video is up now.
	There was a short sort of half-hour version, which isn't behind the paywall, which you can go and watch.
	Which I think is, you know, I think you should check out.
	Now, anyway, so the stream starts.
	The live chat voted in a series of polls to narrow down the first round of contestants to 20 of the most desirable men, living, dead, and fictional.
	Each selected for their excellence in body, mind, and soul to be crowned the most marriageable gentleman.
	Now, the panel must decide which men are the greatest of the great.
	The Le Crème de la Crème.
	Now, just in case you're a Zoom and you're getting confused about that reference, that is actually a French pudding, not what you're thinking.
	So, let's have a look at one of the first segments on there.
	So, can you see this?
	So, this is one of the match-ups.
	It was William Defoe versus... Machiavelli.
	Yes, Nicolas Machiavelli.
	Difficult choice, that one.
	Who is more masculine?
	No, no, it's who would you rather marry.
	So I don't know, to be honest, which of them won.
	What's the next one?
	The next one is, oh yes, so this is, I don't know if some of our viewers will know who this is, but this is Thomas Carlyle versus somebody called Henry Cavill, who is an actor.
	Um, so we all know who Thomas Carlyle is, but, um, but, but, um, this, this Cavill chap, he plays somebody called Superman, which is a, which is a big villain in, um, popular culture.
	So, um, how, how to describe Superman?
	So, so basically there was this film where the good guy, Lex Luthor, he lines up a whole series of, of nuclear weapons all around the perimeter of California to drop California into the sea, and then the villain Superman stops him.
	Yeah.
	So, um, So, bit of a villain he plays, but hopefully that didn't count him against too much.
	What's the next one?
	What's the next one?
	Oh gosh!
	Look, that's me!
	That's me versus James Kirk, Captain of the Enterprise.
	I actually won that one, I don't mind admitting.
	And to be fair, I think that was a justified win.
	I mean, the other guy would be in space.
	Well, not only that... I don't know if that was a fair contest.
	Not only that, he's almost certainly got space... Kirk would be in space.
	He would just explore the galaxy and you would stay here on Earth with the last Well, on an even more fundamental level than that, Kirk's obviously... She would have to be really committed to him not to marry you.
	Kirk's obviously got space chlamydia, isn't he?
	I mean, almost certainly.
	Did you see that episode where he gets with the green girl?
	I don't remember that.
	Yeah, that was one of the ones.
	Now, I'm sure that green girl is going to be all sassy about it, and she's going to be like, yeah, once you go green, you don't go back.
	But all these ladies were just thinking, yeah, once you go green, we don't want you back.
	Yeah.
	So, you know, that's a problem.
	And the other thing is Kirk has this whole tagline thing, which I just always found incredibly unrealistic.
	Because, you know, these episodes, they would always sort of have the same sort of format.
	He would go to a planet where there'd be some big dispute.
	And the space princess would be there, and she would negotiate, let's call it that, to get him on side with whatever dispute was happening on that planet.
	And he would be there with his tagline of, boldly going where no man has gone before.
	Now even as a kid I listened to that and thought, nah mate, I don't think you are.
	Because, you know, Space Princess has just woken up this morning and she's decided to put on the micro skirt and the belly jewel.
	I don't think this is her first negotiation there, mate.
	So, yeah, go on.
	I mean, a goal's a goal, but be realistic, mate.
	And what's the next one?
	What have we got?
	Oh, look, that is Stannis Baratheon versus Batman.
	I mean, sorry, but Stannis was a loser.
	Yeah, but if you go for Batman... He was entitled.
	He can't just say, no, the throne is mine.
	But he was a lord.
	Did he stand up to the title?
	I mean, it's not a great choice, but if you go with Batman, you're almost certainly going to get murdered by the Joker, aren't you, at some point?
	Sorry, Stan is one.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I'm a little bit hazy on the details of this competition.
	In fact, I'm not even necessarily sure who won it in the end.
	Do we have any video about who won it in the end?
	Ah, okay.
	Now this changes everything.
	Oh, yeah.
	Somebody just pointed out that's Patterson.
	No, no, no, no.
	Definitely Stanis Baratheon wins.
	Definitely.
	Not the emo version of Batman.
	Do we have any video of who actually won this competition in the end?
	Can we watch that, maybe?
	Since both of these men did... I want to say rightfully, but the man with no name came in quite late.
	But since they did rightfully get to the final, I feel like they do have a vote on them.
	So just for the full malady of it, it's the ladies' choice for the final round.
	Bernie, which of them?
	The man with no name.
	Patrick?
	The man with no name.
	Kels?
	I am.
	For all of my moaning, I'm going to go with Dan.
	Yay!
	Can we do the tiebreaker, right?
	Yeah, tiebreaker.
	In this situation, I feel like the chat should really be the tiebreaker because we didn't get to vote.
	Alright, let's go to chat.
	Let's go to chat one more time.
	Because, you know, I see both sides of the argument, and I feel like I create control.
	I don't really want to decide the winner.
	Yeah, this argument is your fault, though.
	I hope you realise that.
	We're all angry because of you.
	I do think that in terms of, like, marital happiness, I feel like Dan is the man who you can come back home to every night and have a fun conversation.
	He makes you laugh.
	It's more familiar, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	I feel like if you married Fred Eastwood, you'd get the man with no name.
	He's just too mysterious, you know?
	Like, he's too... Yeah, but that's the fun part.
	You imagine... I feel comfortable with that.
	Yeah, whatever you feel.
	I think it's a sexy song.
	I'm absolutely startled.
	Do you have a final answer?
	It's living in a pole.
	No!
	Tied like a pole.
	62 to 38.
	After everything I said about him being a better husband, a better provider, it seems that I swayed the chat to my way of thinking.
	Gosh, they're just so fickle, aren't they?
	They're so easily swayed.
	So we give it another two minutes, and whoever's got the highest vote on the chat gets to decide to vote.
	At the moment, it's 50-15.
	Yeah.
	I mean, yeah, I actually can't decide.
	I'm leaving it to the chat.
	I'm putting down my tiebreaker.
	Tell the truth, though.
	Tell the truth.
	Yeah, coming down top.
	I've got to give it 10 seconds for the man with the name.
	Oh, someone just put... Okay, votes.
	There's 65 people watching.
	Someone just put, it's rigged, why should I vote?
	Because this isn't actually rigged.
	We are waiting for the deciding vote.
	Choose your ten seconds.
	10 seconds. 10 seconds. 10 seconds. 8, 8, 7, 6, 5, 8, 4, 3, 2, 1. 10 seconds.
	That's right.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	That is...
	9 wins. 2 wins. 1, 2, 1.
	I want to take congratulations.
	I'm going to click on a crown.
	I need a credit.
	Well done.
	Remarkable.
	Sinisteria is no written with a Y.
	Yeah, sorry.
	Remarkable.
	You know what I'm gonna do?
	You won against the man with no name.
	Yeah, wow.
	I have an interpretation for why this happened.
	But before you do, I'm gonna live-action roleplay the boss meme.
	I think I'm supposed to get a crown and a parrot or something, but no, carry on, carry on.
	I mean, they hit him with the legal stuff.
	Have you watched High Plains Drifter?
	Who are we talking about now?
	About the man with no name.
	Oh right, yes.
	He was a gunslinger though, wasn't he?
	He's a gunslinger everywhere, but his behaviour wasn't particularly good to women in High Plains Drifter.
	Yeah.
	I think that's how I beat Cavill in an earlier round, because there are these persistent rumours that he treats women rather badly on set.
	I don't actually believe that, by the way.
	I think that Cavill's alright.
	I think his issue is he just can't suffer idiots gladly.
	Yeah.
	Even if those idiots happen to be women.
	But nevertheless, those rumours have persisted.
	So!
	Excellent!
	What do you think, Stelios?
	Do you think I should change my Twitter bio to – and you're Greek, so you'll get this reference – Adonis.
	Or possibly, given the scale of the magnitude of the win, The Adonis.
	Yeah, or The Adonis.
	So there we go, progressive women.
	If you need a model of apex masculinity, I give you me.
	You're leading by example.
	You're showing, you're not just telling.
	Now, on to our third segment.
	I think that you're going to like this because it's going to be a sort of discussion about where Wokeness is going.
	And I don't think we've ever discussed this between the two of us.
	And I think it's interesting to talk a bit about it.
	I think basically that wokeness on the one hand is ultimate stupidity, ultimate incoherence, ultimate irrationality.
	But there is another perspective that says that basically there is a sinister plan behind it.
	And I want to say that if we focus on what individual, you know, wokers say, it is almost entirely, always entirely stupid.
	But the thing is, this does not explain the kind of power that they have.
	And usually, stupidity and power don't always go together.
	I've kind of got a theory on this.
	It comes back to this whole thinking about there is a God-shaped hole in the human psyche.
	And what you saw in the States was a drive to push a separation of church and state.
	So basically you set up a condition where there was an absence prevalent in society And you set up criteria where it's a bit like a virus to emerge that could evolve into those gaps.
	So the new religion has to be something which is not overtly religious, but has all of the properties of a religion.
	And that can infiltrate.
	So it's kind of, you know, by selective breeding and the conditions, you've set up a condition where a new religion will emerge that can bypass all of those antibodies that would take out a genuine religion.
	Yeah.
	I think that...
	You're right.
	And that what you're saying is compatible with the interpretation I'm going to put forward.
	Basically, it's nothing new.
	It has to do with a contestant you showed before, on your Who Would You Add video against William Defoe.
	It was Niccolo Machiavelli.
	And I think Machiavelli is always relevant when we're trying to explain political phenomena.
	And basically, what I want to say that Wokeness is on its own very, very, very stupid, but it is a very powerful weapon.
	In the hands of those who want to play divide and conquer, and they want to play divide and conquer against the people, and they want to prevent the people from organizing into communities that can function as centers of power with more negotiating power against the state.
	If the people are divided, individuals against the state are not going to be as powerful as communities against the state.
	I think that and we are going to have an imbalance of power.
	So I would say that basically in order to understand where wokeness is going, we should see wokeness as a manifestation.
	You could say an early 21st century manifestation of divide and conquer.
	Yeah, I agree with all of that.
	In that respect, it's nothing new.
	The mantle in which it is dressed is new, yeah.
	It has to do with the kind of rhetoric that developed in, let's say, the humanities departments of Western academia.
	And when, let's say, the Cold War was won, then there was a sort of introversion In societies, they started looking at how to, let's say, disunify the people in order to be able to control them more.
	Yes, well that is a powerful state tool that they're hardly going to not boost the signal on if they can.
	Yeah.
	So, in order to understand the phenomena we are talking about, the current phenomenon of wokeness and where they're leading, we need to look back into history.
	Now, speaking of looking back into the past to see what happened, you can visit our website.
	For only £5 a month, you can gain access to all our premium content, such as the latest Broconomics, called WTF Happened in 1971.
	That's a good one, that one is.
	Yeah.
	I was happy with that one.
	Do you want to give a quick summary?
	Yeah, basically something happened in 1971 and then everything started going wrong and it's absolutely bloody stunning when you look at the evidence.
	All of the things that started going wrong in 1971, whatever that was.
	So yeah, check it out, that's a good one.
	Does it have anything to do with fiat money?
	It does actually, Stelios, yes!
	You see how great minds think alike.
	Indeed.
	Okay, now let's fast forward to 2023.
	52 years forward.
	Now, imagine aliens... Let's click on this link by Ian Miles Chong and he says... Oh, he comes up with some takes, doesn't he?
	The Rockefeller Center replaced each of the 193 world flags around the building with a pride flag.
	I don't remember signing up for this woke globalist nonsense.
	Now, Can you give me an example?
	We can play this on mute.
	Can you give me an example of any other flag that you see being hanged to such a degree?
	Not in the last 70 years, no.
	So if aliens came and landed on that place, where would they say, where are we?
	Would they ask it?
	So, and I want to ask you, we can have this playing in the background on the background.
	So what is the purpose of a flag?
	What would you say is the purpose of a flag?
	Well, you use it to show victory.
	It's used... I mean, for example, when either Kubrick or the Americans, depending on which version you believe, went to the moon, the first thing they did was planted a flag.
	Yeah.
	We conquered this.
	When you've had battles in the past, the first thing they do is stick a flag down.
	It is a sign of saying, we have won.
	Don't you bloody forget it.
	And the important thing is that who is this we?
	Because it signals victory on the one hand, but it also signifies the victory of one side over other sides.
	Which is the cultural victory of the left, presumably?
	I think you're right.
	Now, the thing is that the function of the flag is to include and exclude.
	There is an inclusive element in that, you know, it's the flag of people who are citizens of a nation or National or the nationals that there is an element of inclusivity and unification.
	But there is also an element of exclusivity because those who are not for instance, who are not who don't fly under the colors of one flag, they may they're excluded from it in a sense.
	Yeah, I mean the whole reason why the nation-state as a concept of unity worked for so long is because everybody within the border, everybody whose cooperation you need in order to make the project a success is within your border and you could all identify around a flag, whereas this is specifically designed to render a nation in half.
	Yeah.
	Exactly.
	And this is, it is not a flag of another nation, such as, for instance, when we have flags being hanged on diplomatic events.
	When you have, you know, for instance, politicians from different countries who join together and they put their flags in the background.
	This is supposed to be an internal affair.
	But you could also say it's also supposed to be a global affair, because it is woke globalist nonsense, as Chong says.
	So it is a bit weird.
	Something's going on here.
	The whole bloody thing is just wrought through with contradictions.
	For example, the B bit conflicts with everything after the plus.
	Because the B bit is all about there being two genders, and then the last 26 characters are all making a mockery of the B thing.
	And it's like, okay, what about the T thing?
	If you go to a surgeon about the T thing, they only offer two options.
	Well, what about the other 87?
	You know, while I've got the surgery, I mean, the whole thing, as soon as you start to think about it for more than a second...
	So when you start to think, exactly as you put it, when you start to think about it for more than a second, it becomes complete nonsense.
	But the thing is that why is it so nonsensical and influential at the same time?
	I think it has to do with divide and conquer.
	And what is really interesting about this is that there is a divide and conquer strategy on multiple levels.
	Because on the one hand, this divides the people who who embrace the whole agenda behind that pride flag and the rest.
	But on the other hand, it obfuscates another divide and conquer, which is a divide and conquer of people who belong to groups that are expressed by that flag.
	As you said, not all of them are compatible.
	Yeah.
	Oh, and actually, I don't even think that... I don't know if it's a majority or not, but I would say a sizable proportion of gay and lesbian people want nothing to do with this nonsense.
	They just want to get on and live their bloody lives.
	I think you're right.
	Yeah.
	And it wouldn't surprise me if it was a majority of them.
	This is far more about left-wing cultural victory than it is about what it purports to be.
	Exactly, yeah.
	So let's look at the next link, please.
	We see Re-education Nation always making good claims.
	It says, we want to be left alone.
	Now replace your national flag with our one or we'll call you transphobic.
	There was a Pride event and we have the black trans flag.
	There was a lot of controversy about the flag code.
	I won't enter into that debate.
	You didn't get anything like that for Christmas or Easter?
	It is a bit weird.
	Now let's move on the next one because you would say that what is the goal of it?
	Is it I want to be left alone and leave me alone and I want to be respected as it is portrayed to be or is it basically you are about you should celebrate leaving me alone consists basically in celebrating everything I do?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	There are people in the sensible bits of America, which is basically everywhere outside a city, who basically get up and get on with their lives and they just don't care what the people in the cities are up to.
	But the people in the cities wake up every day and think, OK, how am I going to bend the people outside of the cities to my political will?
	Let's look at the tweet by Lambda Legal.
	Pronouns aren't preferred, they're required.
	Using someone's correct pronouns is a simple act of kindness that can make a huge difference.
	Pronouns are a crucial part of someone's identity and no one should have to explain why their pronouns matter and should be respected.
	I mean, to be fair, I've been working here six months and I'm only just starting to get people's names right, let alone the bloody pronouns.
	I mean, I've got no hope in this new world.
	Yes, but when you have people who function like inquisitors, and they constantly get the worst possible interpretation of anything that is going on, and want to pronounce you as a bigot, and the standards for not being a bigot is that you agree with everything that they're saying, something is going wrong.
	The point is, where is this going?
	Now, let's look at the next link by Calvin Robinson.
	So, he says, Pride conquered Britain without firing a single shot.
	Okay.
	Now, let's look at Dylan Mulvaney giving his own interpretation as to what he is for and what Pride is about.
	I live for the gays.
	I live for the gays.
	I live for them.
	I live for the gays, the gays, the gays, the gays.
	The gays, the gays, the gays make me happy.
	I don't want to live for anyone else.
	Gay, gay, gay.
	Be, be gay.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Good God, it's disturbing.
	And honestly, why do you have to celebrate such behavior?
	I mean, saying that he should be I'm not saying he should be put to jail or something but why are we supposed to no but in a more enlightened age to celebrate this behavior I mean it's someone you know being very in a more enlightened age you know he would have been provided bed and board at a suitable facility where they could you know help with your mental health Yeah.
	Nurse you back to health.
	But we are sort of required to say that we agree, as the Lambda Legal said.
	You're required, it's not a matter of...
	It's an act of kindness on the one hand, but it's required.
	And the big chill is coming on this one, because, you know, I hope you enjoy this segment, because, you know, our ability to do segments talking about this stuff is now going to be severely curtailed, because any time we do a segment on it, now it can't go on YouTube.
	And it has already been, because this segment is not going to be on YouTube.
	No, because new rules came 15 minutes before we're about to film.
	Yeah, so it's a difference between, you know, we are told that basically we're required to celebrate, and...
	And the question comes there, what constitutes celebration?
	And this becomes always, you know, more and more and more stuff.
	You need to do more and more and more stuff to show that you celebrate.
	And if you don't celebrate, you're going to be censored.
	But the problem is here that all of this is leading to further and further and further division, and further and further and further demoralization of people, because the groups that are protected, or allegedly, they have protected within quotation mark characteristics, they're not compatible.
	So the goal is, and here is where Machiavelli helps us and political realists help us, and even before Machiavelli, is that the only way to have incompatible groups unified in order for them to support you, and in order for them to help you into consolidating your political power, is by inventing a common enemy.
	Yes.
	So who is the common enemy here?
	It's the simple people, In the US, in the UK, in Europe, in Australia, in Japan, in North Korea, in Scandinavia, in all Western countries who don't want to play along this agenda.
	The goal is for all wokeness is going on further and further and further demoralization and demoralization can happen with at least two ways.
	One is with nonsense and the other is with guilt.
	If you If you constantly tell someone, bombard someone with nonsense, they will think that basically there's no way of thinking our way out of this, because thinking gets us nowhere.
	If you bombard them with guilt, you make them so...
	You make them increasingly more tolerant of bad policies and of increased centralization of governments because they start feeling, well, okay, I'm guilty.
	I need to atone myself.
	I need to... And basically they're giving a... How should I say it?
	I had the carte blanche.
	How do you say this?
	You're letting them a free pass to others to control you.
	I don't know if you've got it in there, but there was another video talking about your point on incompatible groups, of this Canadian teacher absolutely screaming at a young Muslim boy in her class, because they come to Pride Month and he doesn't want anything to do with it.
	And she's screaming at him, saying, you know, we did a thing on Ramadan, we celebrated your group, this is how it works, you now have to celebrate the pride.
	And he's like, no, I'm not doing it.
	I'm not going along with this.
	And she has a complete breakdown because this coalition that they're trying to build, like you say, it's just incompatible.
	And we see the effects of this incompatibility in this clip, for instance, by Andy Ngo.
	We can have this without sound.
	Where he says, Muslim parents have their children stomp on the LGBTQIA plus pride flags at a protest against the Ottawa Carlton District School Board in Canada.
	So for those listening, it's a large group of people on a Canadian street, the occasional Canadian flag, lots of identifiably Muslim people, and the central focus is a bunch of pride flags on the floor which children are being encouraged to stomp up and down on.
	And it is worth mentioning that this happens in Canada, the sort of woke stronghold of Justin Trudeau.
	And I would be... I really want to see what the response to this will be by Trudeau, because I have the impression that if people from another group, religious and also other non-religious groups, they did this, they... Oh, BF16s.
	Yeah.
	And I'm not speaking in favor of that.
	Yeah.
	I shouldn't be misunderstood.
	We could have also a video from another incident in Belgium where we could leave this playing with no sound.
	And I'll just say that this happened in mid-May.
	There was a Muslim student's treatment of the LGBTQ community.
	From their Islamic faith and prophets example.
	This was in Genk in Belgium.
	You had a lot of Muslim students who stormed the benches there with the pride flags and they were really vocal against it.
	So, let's move forward.
	When we talk about demoralization, because there are two ways in which people get demoralized.
	Now, one is they get demoralized with nonsense, as we said.
	The next one is demoralized with guilt, but let's focus on nonsense.
	Honestly, for the love of God, can we take seriously this case with Leah Thomas and Riley Gaines?
	Well, I've talked about it before.
	Liz Wheeler says, New poll shows 69% of Americans believe transgender athletes should only be allowed to play on sports teams that correspond with their biological sex.
	That's good.
	That makes me happy at least.
	Mind you, I don't mind if the trans men want to try and compete.
	I think that could be funny.
	In what sense?
	The people who used to be women who have now decided they're men.
	If they want to go in the ring with a man who never transitioned, that would be alright.
	It's when it's the other way, when it's trans women.
	That's the one that people really have a problem with.
	I must apologize, I've completely lost track of this, not because of what you said, but because it is confusing.
	So the women with a beard, I don't mind if they try... For men, basically?
	No.
	Women who have taken hormones and now have a beard.
	Okay, yeah.
	So those women, if they want to compete against men, the trans men, I don't mind if they do that.
	You never see that, though.
	You never see somebody who was a woman who is now competing in men's sports.
	It's always the other way around, isn't it?
	Men who compete in women's sports.
	Yes.
	Two things to be said here.
	I also have some more eccentric examples to show you.
	It is really good to remember that the majority is against this, because there is a frequent tactic, especially early 20th century, a guy named Lenin enacted it.
	He brooks no dissent whatsoever.
	Yeah, and basically His party was the minority party and got the name of Bolsheviks, that in Russian means the majority party, where Mensheviks is supposed to be the minority.
	That's not what it means.
	One of the key features of this propaganda, one of the key features of the woke propaganda that aims to demoralize people with nonsense, is to give the impression that the majority is in favor of it.
	But if the majority were in favor of it, there would be no need for all this, and there would be no need to restrict speech.
	Yes, because it would just emerge anyway.
	Yeah, and I mean, if at the end of the day, you think that the majority favors your point, and will be in favor of you, why do you feel the need to restrict free speech?
	Yeah.
	Now, this one, it says, fastest girl in Connecticut, Chelsea Mitchell, in the left with purple, is suing the state after they forced her to compete against transgender athletes who she had no chance of beating and costing her multiple scholarship opportunities.
	And okay, we're talking about boxing, we're talking about cycling, we're talking about swimming.
	I wanted to give another example.
	Well, how about fishing?
	Let's go on the next click.
	Okay.
	Anglers quit England team after trans woman picked for female squad.
	Let's look at this.
	Okay.
	So three members of the six strong squad stepped down after Becky Lee Burt Whistle, Hodges, who was born male, was chosen for the Home Nation's Shore Fishing Championship.
	Jack, hello and so long and thanks for all the fish.
	Yeah.
	Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
	There has been opposition to Burt Whistle Hodges, a former rugby player competing with the England angling team since 2018 when she was first selected.
	That's a he.
	Yeah, they always get mixed up.
	Amid concerns that he has an unfair strength advantage.
	Competitors of shore angling must battle strong winds and currents to catch fish.
	It's tuna season and shark season.
	Have you watched these documentaries where they fish crabs?
	Yeah, that does look really hard work actually, those fishermen, those deep sea fishermen.
	You'd have a new Netflix documentary now.
	Now, let's go to Miriam Cates, the MP.
	She had a beautiful tweet where she says, it's extraordinary that in 2023, in a time of unprecedented knowledge, we're arguing about the definition of something that has been known since the dawn of time.
	The most contentious question of our day has most famously become, what is a woman?
	I think honestly that's nonsense.
	Not her claim, I think she's correct, but it's nonsense.
	We shouldn't be debating this question.
	We know what it is.
	This is a full-scale attack on the people's ability to communicate, coordinate, and act.
	Because in order to formulate, to understand the problem that we are faced with, formulate a good alternative and act according to it, we need at least to be able to have the ability to call a spade a spade.
	The fact that we have to even be addressing these issues, it just feels like end of empire talk to me.
	Because when you're at the point where you're having to argue on absolute fundamental matters like this, obviously there is so much that you are not discussing.
	I think you're correct.
	And there is an issue to be raised as to which side is against dialogue.
	And I'm saying this because frequently it is the woke side that says that we are protecting people, we are pro their rights.
	Everyone who disagrees with us is a bigot.
	But let's look at the next video.
	Die, you f***ing rednecks.
	Why don't you quit being such a waste of oxygen?
	Why don't you present your information?
	Because I'm not going to give a platform to you f***ing Nazis.
	Why don't you go home?
	You can't explain your position?
	F***ing losers.
	My position is I care about human rights and I care about people living their lives and minding their own f*ing business and not being in my face with stupid f*ing cameras.
	So, we can bring down the volume a little bit.
	Well, I don't care.
	I am trying to make a scene because you guys care about genociding trans people.
	Genociding?
	What constitution is genocide?
	What are you talking about?
	None of this s*** is actually happening.
	You guys are f***ing dumb.
	Kids aren't getting puberty blockers?
	What is not happening?
	I'm not putting myself on this platform.
	You guys are f***ing idiot losers.
	Goodbye.
	You're the one inserting yourself into the platform.
	Is that the best argument you can marshal?
	Right, the funniest thing about that is that he grabs hold of the mic at one point with both hands and tries to wrench it out of the hand of a Chad dude and he's giving it all his might and he cannot get that mic off him even though the other guys just sort of stood there casually holding it so he then has to sort of let go and make it look like he was just making a dramatic point.
	Yeah.
	And when we have people like that, they obviously cannot talk.
	They obviously cannot engage in dialogue.
	Yeah.
	And again, we see this presentation where it's either wholesale adoption of this agenda.
	Is this agenda coherent?
	No, but that's not the point.
	The point is not about coherence.
	This person is a useful idiot.
	Yeah.
	And all the people who are.
	I mean, you can't debate him.
	What can you do with him?
	So I'm just getting an alert on my phone for, would you like to buy a helicopter?
	Sorry, I'll come back to that.
	I would, if they're interested in selling one, I would.
	In Minecraft?
	No, I want an actual one.
	It's just so easy to... No, we just say that so we don't get arrested later.
	Okay, yeah.
	A chopper!
	Okay, so another way to demoralize people is with guilt.
	Hence the constant talk about transgender genocide.
	We have this tweet here.
	This person says, I have been covering the mass migration of trans people for the last two years.
	Starting with the first Texas law charging child abuse.
	I'm glad to see the mainstream media covering it now as well.
	These laws are genocidal and we have internally displaced political refugees.
	Let's go to the next link.
	This is, again, Alexandra Caraballo, who constantly talks about transgenocide, and we have the answer by team Paul.
	If you're a dad and apolitical, and you get angry that pedophiles are trying to groom your kids, then you're a far-right extremist.
	And I want to say that there was a brilliant response by a Scottish politician when a person was constantly talking about people not caring about trans rights that I want to share with you. - Should I just kill myself now and be done with it?
	They will not rest until trans people are excluded from public life.
	I like this sigh of exasperation.
	What rubbish.
	Just constantly stop blackmailing people that if you don't agree with them, if someone came in and told you, Hi Dan, you may not know me, but I know you.
	If you don't play along with what I'm saying, I'm gonna kill myself.
	But no pressure.
	Yes.
	Well, I have to ask, how?
	Yeah.
	Because, I mean, if they're going to sort of catapult themselves into a wall or something, you then have to ask, where are you going to do this?
	So I think it's all a divide and conquer strategy.
	These people are useful idiots.
	The more idiotic they are, the more useful they are.
	And this is precisely what is going on.
	So we should be aware of their tricks and constantly talk to each other about their tricks and don't get demoralized, basically.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Tony D and wee Scurvy Joan here with another tale of pirates of South Jersey.
	William Treem was from Egg Harbor, New Jersey and a legendary hero.
	He had escaped the infamous prison ship, the Jersey in New York Harbor during the Revolutionary War.
	And everybody thought he was a hero.
	So they gave him command of his own ship and he attacked the British, terrorizing the shipping lanes and helping the war effort.
	All the way up until the last day of the war where he took his final ship and then disappeared into the pages of history.
	I think that you should have a Roger Molly flag and you have a flag code for how to hang it.
	All credit to that chap, if he's prepared to take the British on then he's got some stones on him.
	Right, let's go to the comments.
	Malicious compliance.
	Free speech in general seems to be neither a left-wing value nor a right-wing value, but an anti-authoritarian value.
	The reason why it may be more of a conservative value is because it was considered worth conserving.
	Your thoughts?
	I totally agree with this.
	It's a basic issue of being able to use your speech and say whether you agree or disagree with anything, so it's not...
	I suppose on a fundamental conceptual level, it isn't necessarily either right-wing or left-wing, but I mean, what we're dealing with here is not a coherent political philosophy.
	It is mental illness expressed as a governance structure.
	And also, just to add to this, whenever there is the further question of how concern for free speech is being expressed, frequently you have the groups who are who feel that their speech is threatened to argue for it.
	So, in some cases it may seem as if it is a left-wing value, in other cases as if it is a right-wing value, but it is an anti-authoritarian value, as you're saying.
	A Lotus-Eater, it's about you.
	Do you want to read this?
	Right.
	A Lotus-Eater says, Number one Dan fan here to appreciate some bone-dry wit, mono-monocular sharp sarcasm, and a complete lack of patience for gibbering Mormons.
	Yeah, that's high praise.
	Yes, that's true.
	Good comment, good comment.
	Right, let's go to California Bill AB 957.
	So, divorce is already terrifying in the US for fathers where you will lose half your stuff, be forced to pay alimony for many years and are highly unlikely to get custody or shared custody of your children.
	Fathers did not need the stupid law on top of everything else.
	Totally agree with you.
	It's tragedy.
	I hope somehow this changes.
	If you're a young man in California, why would you start the process of going through all of the traditional steps of courting and engagement and marriage?
	I can see why they just disengage.
	Let's see.
	Kevin Fox.
	So, his cousin didn't commit suicide.
	He followed a fairly common AA route.
	Drugs.
	Go to cheapest place for drugs.
	Kill yourself with drugs.
	That cannot be used as an argument in favor of castrating kids.
	Spot on.
	That guy's cousin would most likely have ended up the same way had he been gay or straight.
	I saw one that I definitely want to mention.
	Derek Power.
	When you have a legislator with a surname like Wiener, you know you're in trouble.
	You want to go to some comments of your section?
	Yeah, go on then.
	Also, now that you're reading comments and off the YouTube, what was the topic that Dan isn't allowed to talk about as of this morning?
	Well, none of us are allowed to talk about on YouTube anymore the traps, the trannies, the teagirls, the people who with the... T for transgenderism.
	Yes.
	Chaps in dresses.
	No, you're getting lumped off YouTube now if you talk about those things.
	Right, Derek Power.
	He's got some good comments, doesn't he?
	So what does he say here?
	Because he's always on the money.
	He says, Ah!
	Dan always bringing brightness and cheer to us Lotuses.
	Yes, true as well.
	Sophie says, Henry Cavill.
	Our merry Henry Cavill.
	Well, you didn't do very well in the competition, so you should have a little competition there.
	So good for you, if that's what you like.
	Right.
	Do you want to have a last one and we end because we're running out of time?
	No, no, you go ahead.
	Okay, so it was very enjoyable.
	I really enjoyed this and see you tomorrow.
	Goodbye.

▲